Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

More egregious a faux pas than the trouser length brought up by the OP is the wearing of these horrendously ugly new styled shoes. They are not very classy at all. At best they are akin to running shoes at worst they are boat clogs.

Perhaps the extraneous trouser length is an attempt to cover their uncouth clod hoppers.

All of these photos are too long. Typically the back of the trouser should hit about halfway between the sole and the top of your shoe at the heel. It should not hit the sole. The front of your trousers should touch your laces and naturally fold slightly, once, above that. This is called the "break". If you have more than one fold in the front of your trousers then they are too long.

I prefer medium break. A lot of younger guys wear suits with short jackets and no break, but I don't like that style. All of the pants posted above are longer than medium break and I think they could use a little hemming-- especially for golf, where you are walking so much.

They wear short jackets with no break because that's what the ads look like and they are too stupid to realize that sock and belt companies advertise too. They need the pants short, and the jacket short, to get their product seen. No one in the real world wears a suit like that. Only models getting paid, and magazines selling ad space.

Where do you live?

Masse1369, on 27 February 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Matt Kuchar is probably the worst dressed golfer on tour. I don't think it really matters if you think his pants are the correct length, and they're not, they're too short. A lot of these pants might be deemed a little long, but that first pic you posted in the OP is perfect. You have to realize too that he is bending over slightly. That BB picture is also too short by about 1/2-3/4". I'm a long time member over at StyleForum.net and trust me when I say the people that post on that forum make us look like totally normal people.

PS, seems where some people go off in the wrong direction, slacks on tour are NOT worn the same length as regular dress slacks. All my Zanella slacks are cut to the back of my shoe heal, with one break in front. They do not need to cover up my socks, which is the case on tour. As I said, most tour guys have to be frugil when packing luggage every week. That means unless something special is happening requiring a suite or, they are not likely to pack both regular socks and mini crew golf socks... reason for added length hem.

All of these photos are too long. Typically the back of the trouser should hit about halfway between the sole and the top of your shoe at the heel. It should not hit the sole. The front of your trousers should touch your laces and naturally fold slightly, once, above that. This is called the "break". If you have more than one fold in the front of your trousers then they are too long.

I prefer medium break. A lot of younger guys wear suits with short jackets and no break, but I don't like that style. All of the pants posted above are longer than medium break and I think they could use a little hemming-- especially for golf, where you are walking so much.

They wear short jackets with no break because that's what the ads look like and they are too stupid to realize that sock and belt companies advertise too. They need the pants short, and the jacket short, to get their product seen. No one in the real world wears a suit like that. Only models getting paid, and magazines selling ad space.

Where do you live?

Masse1369, on 27 February 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Matt Kuchar is probably the worst dressed golfer on tour. I don't think it really matters if you think his pants are the correct length, and they're not, they're too short. A lot of these pants might be deemed a little long, but that first pic you posted in the OP is perfect. You have to realize too that he is bending over slightly. That BB picture is also too short by about 1/2-3/4". I'm a long time member over at StyleForum.net and trust me when I say the people that post on that forum make us look like totally normal people.

No because of the slight bend in his knees, they would be longer. Think what you want, but they are a fraction too short on Matt. The pants should go the top of the heel in the back and a slight break/drape in the front. The stuff you guys talk about on this forum...lol I'm going over to the cologne thread!!

There is no fixed rule as to trouser length. A lot depends on the build of the person wearing the pants.

I am a big guy, because of this, the width of the legs on my pants are quite a bit larger than what would be built for a person with a thinner frame. With a wider leg, a half to full break gives the best lines, to go with no break would simply look silly with a lot of extra fabric flapping about.

Likewise, for a gentleman with a lean, lanky build, buying a trimly tailored pant with a full break would look out of place.

Where people know how to dress, and understand the only reason you see the socks in the GQ ad is because the sock company down there in the small writing paid to have their socks shown. When GQ's own fashion and style department are laughing at people who wear a suit like that in real life, it's time to let it go. Sock companies need to sell things, too. Don't believe the hype.

"As for trouser break, I know this sounds prejudiced, but whenever I see a man in an expensive suit with no break to his trousers, that is, with the trouser hems riding above the shoes and showing sock, I wonder which small midwestern community he’s a pillar of. Sorry."

Designer Michael Bastian on how the right call can make or break a suit “I like cuffs on pants of just about any fabric. Of course, when you’re dealing with heavier corduroys and tweeds, the cuffs serve a purpose: They give the pants some weight, so they fall better. I say, if you’re gonna go for a cuff, go for it; make it at least an inch and a quarter deep. As for the break, 90 percent of guys keep it classic, where the front of your pants hits the top bit of your shoes and the back of them touches the tops of your heels. That always works"

Where people know how to dress, and understand the only reason you see the socks in the GQ ad is because the sock company down there in the small writing paid to have their socks shown. When GQ's own fashion and style department are laughing at people who wear a suit like that in real life, it's time to let it go. Sock companies need to sell things, too. Don't believe the hype.

"As for trouser break, I know this sounds prejudiced, but whenever I see a man in an expensive suit with no break to his trousers, that is, with the trouser hems riding above the shoes and showing sock, I wonder which small midwestern community he’s a pillar of. Sorry."

Designer Michael Bastian on how the right call can make or break a suit “I like cuffs on pants of just about any fabric. Of course, when you’re dealing with heavier corduroys and tweeds, the cuffs serve a purpose: They give the pants some weight, so they fall better. I say, if you’re gonna go for a cuff, go for it; make it at least an inch and a quarter deep. As for the break, 90 percent of guys keep it classic, where the front of your pants hits the top bit of your shoes and the back of them touches the tops of your heels. That always works"

I would bet most current designers that target younger demographics would say the opposite, fact is that there is nothing wrong with the younger "hipper" styles of wearing your pants. There is also nothing wrong with wearing your pants like an older man as long as you don't over do it and look sloppy. I have one suit pant with a cuff tailored to a mid-break. The rest are all no cuff with little to no break, I wear shorter coats as well. Its not to sell socks or belts. Its because I'm less than 40 years old and want to dress like it. By the way your man Michael Bastian's website is revealing about his style sense, its not the sock companies with this pichttp://www.michaelba...c.com/shop.html
oh, and these are recent pics of Michael Bastian "selling socks" for reference:

There is no fixed rule as to trouser length. A lot depends on the build of the person wearing the pants.

I am a big guy, because of this, the width of the legs on my pants are quite a bit larger than what would be built for a person with a thinner frame. With a wider leg, a half to full break gives the best lines, to go with no break would simply look silly with a lot of extra fabric flapping about.

Likewise, for a gentleman with a lean, lanky build, buying a trimly tailored pant with a full break would look out of place.

A weird thread indeed, yet for some reason I read through it all. Lots of the pictures involve knee flex which is distorting the lengths, but I'm with the OP that Casey Wittenberg's pants look terrible. Lenght, width, etc., everything is wrong.

A weird thread indeed, yet for some reason I read through it all. Lots of the pictures involve knee flex which is distorting the lengths, but I'm with the OP that Casey Wittenberg's pants look terrible. Lenght, width, etc., everything is wrong.

i keep reading through this thread for some reason. something about looking at golfers' trouser lengths i guess my pant length is just like rory's in the above photo, so i'm guilty of breaking your trouser length standard ronnbee.

i keep reading through this thread for some reason. something about looking at golfers' trouser lengths i guess my pant length is just like rory's in the above photo, so i'm guilty of breaking your trouser length standard ronnbee.

X2 !!!! I get mine tailored to hang over my shoes when standing so that when I sit I dont expose half of my leg. Call me crazy, or young and American.

I love that pic of Hogan and Arnie. One of my favorite golf pics ever, I have it saved on my computer at home from when I saw it long ago. First, because those guys are just cool. Second, because despite their relationship (Hogan was awful to Palmer) it's pretty clear that young Palmer is emulating the elder Hogan here.

That said, both their pants are too short for modern style. Not much too short, but too short. Especially Arnie.